Customer Reviews

London: A Social History (A "New York Times" notable book 1995)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I want to preface this review by stating that I am in no way an expert on Roy Porter as a historian in general, nor do I claim to have read a plethora of similar books on the history of London. I am merely writing this review as someone who has read Porter's book for a 300-level university course on the history of London.

That said, I have to say that if you are looking for a cohesive overview of every aspect of London's history, you may want to look elsewhere. Porter's primary focus is a religious history of London (which would have been a more apt title). He spends too much time describing in detail nearly all of London's churches (and there are hundreds) and talking about the development of the streets. There are paragraphs (and, indeed, the entire introduction chapter) rattling off street names that mean nothing to anyone but native Londoners. I am currently studying in London and have lived here for quite some time, and still the street names do nothing to enhance understanding. It serves primarily to congest and overwhelm the bits of valid information that are thrown in.

Porter says little about the evolution of London as it relates to England's history. He does divide the chapters into specific historical periods, which is useful, but for those who want to learn about the more interesting monarchs and their relation to the city, read another book. He barely mentions Henry VIII or any of the more colorful monarchs. His chapter on the Tudor period focuses primarily on the Reformation and the reigns of Elizabeth and Mary. While interesting, there is more to a social history than religious upheaval and trade guilds.

I would have to say that Porter's history of London takes a convoluted and dull approach to a fascinating history. The book is by no means bad, but for those who have a choice in what they read and want to spend their time wisely, I'd advise buying a different history of this great city.

Roy Porter's book covers the full breadth of London history, from Roman times to approximately 1990, with the Victoria era and the post-WWII era receiving particularly heavy emphasis. A more accurate title for the book would be 'London: A History,' because the social history component is a bit thin. Porter devotes more attention to the evolving political situation and to physical characteristics (streets, fortifications, famous buildings) than he does to social history.

This is a wonderful introduction to London, and would be ideal for the visitor seeking a deeper appreciation of (what I regard as) the world's most fascinating city. One quibble: Porter should have been more self-restrained about his visceral hatred of Margaret Thatcher. Porter's rants about her are so over-the-top that he even blames her for the excesses of left-wing political correctness.

Roy Porter, noted and trained as a medical historian, turned his attention to the social development of London, and we are the richer for it. Porter is a Londoner, and has a passion for the city. He is, however, frank in his conviction that London has had it's hour upon the stage:

'London is not the eternal city.... Between the two Elizabeths, between 1570 and 1986 to be more precise, it was to become the world's greatest city.'

Porter sees the abolition of the Greater London Council (GLC) by Margaret Thatcher as a benchmark to the demise of London as a great city (I happen to disagree; will he change his opinion in light of the upcoming mayoral elections in London?) Porter's current pessimism about London is very apparent from page 1 of the introduction; however, this does not keep him from doing a sterling job with his subject throughout the text.

Porter gives brief description to Londinium (mentioning among other things that it was abandoned 'to the dogs' by the Romans in the fifth century), however, begins his history in earnest about the year 1500 because while 'the Romano-British city and its medieval successor have left extensive archaeological remains and chronicles, ...we have no full visual record from before the Tudor age.'

Porter examines eras in terms of the history of culture, of commerce and industry, and of population and social changes. The nineteenth century (in which there was practically no urban planning, as any current map will inform you) is described as 'Bumbledom', particularly in the field of London politics.

Porter describes the expansion of London as a 'fungus-like growth' in the late 19th/early 20th centuries; he concludes his analysis with chapters on 'Swinging London' and 'Thatcher's London'. Porter leaves us with a question: 'London was always a muddle that worked. Will it remain that way?'

In all, a wonderful read, a wonderful story, and a wonderful topic.

More illustrations and above all more plentiful and better maps would have made Porter's superlative history of London an unqualified masterpiece. As such, it is still a bloody good book. The late Roy Porter was not only a brilliant historian, above all of the 18th century for which his enthusiasm is nearly overwhelming, but a writer of verve and wit far removed from much desiccated academism. It would be a fitting tribute for Harvard to bring out an expanded edition awash with bells and whistles. Let's hope.

Roy Porter's bestselling "London: A Social History" provides an interesting but idiosyncratic overview of the history and development of that greatest of modern cities. It is partially an ecclestiastical history of the city; partially a history of social and cultural norms in the 17th and 18th century; partially an indictment of Thatcher's government and her attitude towards London; partially a rehabilitation of private developers in the 19th century; and part popular historical overview. The result is a book full of interesting insights, amusing anecdotes and historical highlights, but it is severely lacking in structure and uneven as to its scope. Porter himself was famous particularly as a historian of medicine and medical practice, in which field he was an uncontested pioneer, but his period specialization in the early modern era puts too much of a stamp on the book. It is fairly common for popular history to spend a great part of the book on the 19th century, especially when it concerns British topics, and so a counterweight in early modern history is not unwelcome. But the book spends 180 pages on early modern history, another 150 or so on the 19th century, and barely even a hundred on the 20th century.

There is also unevenness in the range of topics. Since the book is labelled 'a social history', one expects an emphasis on the daily life of Londoners and the development of demographics, of neighbourhoods, and so forth. Much of this is provided, but interestingly it takes the form of mainly tracing social developments in the city through the ecclesiastical history on the one hand, and the physical construction of roads and boroughs on the other hand. Each period is given its own peculiar topical emphasis by Porter: the 17th century is mainly described in terms of building projects and expansions, the 18th century history is mainly cultural, whereas the 19th is mainly economic; the 20th century, finally, is where some politics comes in. But although two chapters are dedicated to the political aspects, these get relatively short shrift, as does London in the Middle Ages. On the other hand, one can argue this is fair enough for a social history, as so much has been written on Britain's politics already, but the peculiar disproportions are the more noticable for being uncommon.

That is not to say that this is a bad book. On the contrary, its unevenness is almost hidden entirely under the vast scope of the undertaking, Porter's skilled and engaging writing, and his mastery over detail. A 'social history' here seems to mean a history of essentially anything that does not mainly deal with politics and economics, and this leaves a massive wealth of material for a historian to choose from. Porter's selections are excellent, since it allows him exactly the right balance between engaging details and quotations on the one hand and the sweep of the broad brush on the other hand that is necessary for successful popular history. In fact, the wealth of information provided about London's streets, churches, crime, brothels, sewers, governments and immigration is so great that even those familiar with the city and who need no general introductions to the chronology of British history will find many things they did not know. The book is stylistically light enough to attract general readers, but the content is solid enough to make it anything but dumbed down. That is quite an impressive performance in its own right, and combined with the vast scope of topics covered, the book almost succeeds at being an unassailable all-round general history of the city up to the early 1990s. That is doesn't succeed entirely at being the definitive work on the subject due to insufficiently balanced integration of the different periods and topics is therefore certainly no reason not to buy this book. Recommended for anyone interested in London's history outside politics.